Altitude is an important idea in integral theory and practice, and one that causes quite a bit of heated debate. In IS Ken uses consciousness per se (CPS) and an overall marker of one’s general altitude. This seems to replace the prior notion of a center of gravity around one’s self-system, and this in turn is led by cognitive development which is necessary but not sufficient for development in other lines. I contend that this new notion of altitude is not only inaccurate but leads to a false sense of superiority oever others because they “just can’t understand.”
Now I certainly agree that the last statement is true when we take specific levels in specific lines like cognitive development. If one were to say to a 2-year old, when they ask why daddy put his penis in mommy’s mouth and daddy says: “You can’t understand yet. One day, when you’re big enough…” But as to whether there is some “spiritual” integration of all the lines via “consciousness” that can only be developed through “meditation” is highly questionable and hardly “proven” or agreed upon even among so-called spiritual experts. And it when the latter occurs, I think, that we start to get into a dysfunctional hierarchy (or holarchy, if you prefer) of dominance of “my view is better than yours.” Especially when that view is a totalizing view of everything, so that it is “absolutely” better than yours in all contexts because it is “spiritual.”
Ebuddha is exploring a spiritual intelligence quotient in his blog. And if we define spiritual by one’s meditative abilities I can even agree that one can measure altitude in that line. But is it the definitive line by which all others should be measured. Or the definitive altitude to describe someone overall? I would think not according to IS, because Ken made clear that one can have permanent nondual awareness (the highest “spiritual” level) and still not have a very high cognitive capacity. And it would seem that CPS is what develops to nondual awareness via meditatiion, so this CPS doesn’t really seem apt at functioning as a marker of overall development.
But there are such prejudicial overtones around “spiritual” and spiritual attainment as an absolute over every other relative attainment, like cognitive development. And this seems in opposition to the notion that cognition is necessary but not sufficient to development in all the other lines. Apparently cognitiion is not necessary to development in the “spiritual” line. And of course this is usually explained away as the absolute-relative dichotomy, the “two truths.” But if the two truths are reconciled or integrated in nondual awareness, yet nondual awareness has apparently nothing to do with cognitive development, and the latter is the necessary (but not sufficient) marker for all other relative lines, then what kind of absolute is being integrated with what kind of relative here? Or are they really being integrated at all with this species of specious argument?
Yeah yeah, I know, I can only “experience” the answer in satori. I’ve had the experience and it’s not the answer. Satori is an experience of altitude in a particular line, not the answer to it all.
Relevant to this discussion are Ken’s definitions of the word “spiritual.” The following are excerpts from his online essay “A summary of my psychological model”: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model1.cfm/
(1) spirituality involves peak experiences or altered states, which can occur at almost any stage and any age; (2) spirituality involves the highest levels in any of the lines; (3) spirituality is a separate developmental line itself; (4) spirituality is an attitude (such as openness, trust, or love) that the self may or may not have at any stage.
This phenomena (i.e., a person can be highly developed in certain spiritual traits but poorly developed in others, such as psychosexual, emotional, or interpersonal skills) can be believably explained by three of the four definitions (e.g., #1: if spirituality is defined as an altered state, those can certainly occur in a personality that is dysfunctional; #2: if spirituality is the highest levels in any of the lines, a person can be highly developed in some lines and poorly or pathologically in others; #3: if spirituality is a separate line itself, then individuals can be highly advanced in that line and poorly or pathologically developed in others). This uneven mixture (of spiritual and pathological) is not easily explained by definition #4 (i.e., if spirituality is something that either is or is not present at any stage, then the only way to get uneven and mixed development is to revert to one of the other definitions, but that “developmental ranking” is what this definition claims to avoid). Nor can uneven development be explained by single ladder models of development (according to which, a person failing a lower stage could not advance to a higher).
Also relevant to this discussion are some of Mark’s comments from his online essay “On being critical” at Integral World: http://www.integralworld.net
As a student and practitioner of the social sciences part of my role within the broader integral community is, as I see it, to be an active “critic of integral theory†but this does not mean that I am a “Wilber criticâ€Â. Equating these two very different activities confuses the important task of critical evaluation with the rather mean-spirited task of faultfinding. It also confuses scientific criticism of Wilber’s writings with an ad hominem and judgemental form of criticism that is directed against the person of Ken Wilber. I want to support critical appraisal of integral theory and separate this from criticism of the person or intentions, or motivations and so on.
Whatever our shadow-side predilections may be, the crucial thing is that at every level there needs to be multiple forums for validating, confirming, questioning, criticising, developing, expanding and contributing to the emergence of the integral vision. We can each contribute in our own way, and the analytical critic can contribute no less than the pragmatic doer.
Should the level of development (developmental profile) of the critic be taken into account when judging their criticism? To this question I answer a resounding NO. Here are my reasons. (All of these reasons are based on consistent interpretations of well known integral theory principles).
Development is complex, people are complex, and assessing the developmental profile of any individual is an extremely difficult and, even in settings were it might be possible, it is often inappropriate to do so. It is certainly not possible to do such a thing outside of a clinical, standardised setting by someone who is not professionally trained to administer the suitable tests and interviews. Thinking that we can assess the developmental nature of an individual on the basis of their critical comments or theoretical writings is not only naïve it is also almost certainly bound to be significantly deficient. Consequently we need to move our focus from the critic to the nature of their criticism. What’s truly important here is the validity and the accuracy of the criticism itself and how we make use of it, not the developmental nature of the critic.
Integral theory is an integrated model that addresses and includes all levels of development. Therefore, any criticism from any level or relating to any level has the possibility of being valid for the relevant level(s). For example, integral theory deals with many postmodern issues such as pluralism, relativism, and contextualism. Consequently, postmodern critics of integral theory who are experts in these areas can make valid criticisms of the way integral theory deals with this “levelâ€Â. This means the GREEN theorists can offer very pertinent criticisms that may need to be incorporated into the integral framework. The same is true for experts in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, spirituality, etc.
There is much about integral theory that has nothing to do with levels. For example, quadrants, types, perspectives, lines, and dynamics have nothing essentially to do with levels. That’s why the integral theory framework is called AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels, All Lines, All types, All …) and not simply AL (All Levels. Full stop). Consequently, someone who is expert in, say, developmental dynamics might be able to offer very cogent criticisms of how integral theory deals with transitional issues irrespective of what level they are at.
No one is “at†a level. While people may have a general centre of gravity, that centre can change dramatically in any direction in particular circumstances. Mini transformations, peak experiences, sudden insights and flow experiences can overtake us at certain times. Individuals therefore might have some new insight into an integral way of looking at things that is valid and cogent and which might add to the storehouse of integral theory propositions irrespective of their standard modus operandi or developmental centre of gravity.
The inclusion of the ideas of developmental lines in integral theory means that development is idiosyncratic and ideographic. Individuals can be at several levels of development within different domains of life at the same time. They therefore may well be able to connect with a wider range of developmental worldviews than is commonly acknowledged (see APPENDIX for a further discussion on this). This argument simply warns us against making judgements related to the linking of criticism with the developmental profile of the critic. These are complex realms that have no real place in the judgement of criticism and its theoretical cogency.
From Wouter Hanegraaff, “Everyone is right…†in the Reading Room at Integral World:
However, the biggest problem with Wilber’s approach is that he offers no opportunity for a dialogue based on equality with those who have a different religious perspective. Wilber does not speak to “the otherâ€Â; the other is spoken to by him. “Everyone is rightâ€Â, for sure, but it is Wilber who decides to what extent one is right and to what extent one is wrong. All psychological and religious perspectives of humanity are neatly placed somewhere within a comprehensive hierarchy, but Wilber’s own perspective is located at the top of the pyramid or beyond, and it is from that position that the rules of the game are established.
In “Overall Altitude?” Edward raises several points about altitude in Integral Theory. Although I disagree with several of his interpretations, points, and conclusions, his post and comments are nevertheless well worth reading. Here’s my reply:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Joe. Your response too has much to consider and I don’t have the time to respond to all your points at the moment. So I’ll restrict this to one point: the Kosmic address being in the general ballpark or on the same street.
The assumption you accept behind this is that CPS is the measurement for getting one in the ballpark. Is this not what Ken is using for an overall altitude marker in IS? I don’t have time to provide quotes but I’ve done so in many other comments in other blog posts, so I think that’s accurate. And is it a legitimate measure for such a task given that it appears to be the same CPS that is developed in the “spiritual” state-stages of meditation? So how do you reconcile Ken’s other statements that one can develop in the spiritual line of meditative state-stages yet not necessarily develop (and often not) in the cognitive line, which to me seems a far more accurate measure of some overall altitude in a very general sense. It is not by accident that Cook-Greuter’s stages of ego development, at least up to formal operations, are almost identical with Piaget’s on cognitive development.
Edward:
I’ve replied at length here:
http://until.joe-perez.com/2006/12/measuring-spiritual-development-and.html
I tried to cross-post this reply here however the HTML sent the comment into a moderation cue. Feel free to delete that comment. I would post a plain text version of my reply here except that my writing contains images and formatting that are best included.
Thanks, Joe
I’ve updated my post at
http://until.joe-perez.com/2006/12/measuring-spiritual-development-and.html
with a response to your questions at 1:14 pm
Joe: You quoted Ken as saying the consciousness is the empty, open, clearing in which phenomonon arise and that the more phenomenon that can arise in a particular line the higher the line. You also made the distinction between the type of phenomenon, as it’s not merely a matter of quantity but the quality, since different stages see different kinds of phenomenon. Then we must step outside the phenomenon per se to see those patterns of development, as according to Ken phenomenological experience is confined to zone 1 (and 3). Regarding the seeing of structural stages to phenomenon he says in IS pp.207-08:
“As we have been saying throughout this book, consciousness itself simply cannot see zones #2 and #4, and therefore is deficient in and of itself (e.g., ‘Not through introspection but through history do we come to know ourselves’). You can introspect all you want and you won’t see those other truths. So consciousness itself is deficientâ€â€whether personal or transpersonal, whether pure or not pure, essential or relative, high or
low, big mind or small mind, vipassana, bare attention, centering prayer, contemplative awarenessâ€â€none of them can see these other truths, and that is why Habermas and the postmodernists extensively criticize ‘the philosophy of consciousness’.â€Â
So here the same empty, open consciousness is limited to a zonal perspective. Yet Ken differentiates perceptions versus perspectives in footnote 7 to Excerpt C:
“Is there any perception that is not a perspective? Yes, I believe so, and it has to do with satori or nondual awareness (or pure Emptiness–consciousness without an object, which is therefore consciousness without a perspective), which I will explore in later excerpts. The conclusion of this integral reformulation of the wisdom traditions is that samsara (or the world of Form) is composed of perspectives, and nirvana (or Emptiness) is pure perception without an object or perspective. The union of Emptiness and Form is thus the union of perception and perspective, where in my pure perception I am one with everything that is arising (although as expressed through my own individual perspective, with which I am no longer exclusively identified). Finding Emptiness is a freedom from all perspectives (a nirvana free of samsara); a union with Form is finding the Fullness of perspectives that alone can express this Freedom (the nonduality of nirvana and samsara). Wisdom is transcending perspectives, compassion is embracing them all.â€Â
Now is or is not this consciousness without a perspective, this pure perception of everything that is arising, the same as the consciousness per se that is the “inches” without content that measures the height of altitude? And if so, how is this empty measurement of pure perception confined to the inside, interior “perspective” which cannot perceive the structure-stages of development (the actual measurement) which requires something apparently beyond CPS?
Edward: I was unable to locate the KW passage you called out in my version of Integral Spirituality, though there is a similar passage at p. 176. Also, rightly or wrongly, I don’t put a lot of stock in the excerpts. Until it’s published, I assume that KW may change his mind or clean up his prose in any number of ways that make the excerpts invalid. Therefore, I can’t given an answer for what Wilber thinks.
I do think it’s clear that by “philosophy of consciousness,” or “consciousness” as it’s used by phenomenologists, he means a deficient approach to consciousness that lacks proper awareness of intersubjectivity. He joins the chorus of postmodernists who have extensively criticized this concept. That use of “consciousness” is very different from what he seems to be speaking about in the excerpts, which is basically a translation of how nondual realization looks. I think it’s quite an articulate statement: “Finding Emptiness is a freedom from all perspectives (a nirvana free of samsara); a union with Form is finding the Fullness of perspectives that alone can express this Freedom (the nonduality of nirvana and samsara). Wisdom is transcending perspectives, compassion is embracing them all.” In other words, rising in altitude is transcending perspectives; accepting depth is embracing our perspectives.
So I would guess that for Wilber the answer to your first question is NO. And then the second question does not arise. Would thinking in terms of a symbol help make this less abstract? In the Kronology symbol, nondual realization is not depicted by any station on the mandala, but is suggested by the totality of the symbol, as viewed from the perspective at high noon (the union of infrared and ultraviolet). Use that, if it helps.
I don’t have the published book IS, just the full draft prior to publication. So perhaps what I quoted was taken out. Or “cleaned up.” But does IS answer that question? You say if they are not the same then the 2nd question does not arise. But if they are the same it’s a valid question with
many of the implications I expressed in the original blog post, imo.
[ Home > E-Library > Works Of Sri Aurobindo > The Life Divine Volume-19 > Out Of The Sevenfold Ignorance...
This evolution, this process of heightening and widening and integralisation, is in its nature a growth and an ascent out of the sevenfold ignorance into the integral knowledge. The crux of that ignorance is the constitutional; it resolves itself into a manifold ignorance of the true character of our becoming, an unawareness of our total self, of which the key is a limitation by the plane we inhabit and by the present predominant principle of our nature... ]
Even though the IS draft and the published book are a bit divergent, I think the point remains the same. Does the book have a section entitled “Monological imperialism and the myth of the given”? Any type of consciousness, including the open, empty consciousness per se, falls prey to not seeing the myth of the given and is validy critiqued by the pomoers regarding intersubjectivity, i.e, if you accept Ken’s argument. And I’m sure in other places of the published book he notes that consciousness of any variety is a phenomelogial affair limited to the insides of interiors. (Granted there are those that disagee with this by I’m using Ken’s version to make my point.) And if so consciousness has a limited perspective and is not truly “pure perception beyond perspective.”
At root of this house of cards is what I’ve been saying all along, the dualistic intepretation of the nondual as the integration of an “absolute” with a “relative.” This type of intepretation of nondual leads to all sorts of hegemonic ultimate (not relative) evaluations of everything, including people (albeit unconsciously [shadow], because consciously it states [projects] the opposite). And it falls prey itself to the myth of the given. All this was discussed in extensive detail in previous blogs and commnts, perhaps before Joe started reading.
Whereas we can have altitude but avoid all this by acknowleging that this seemingly (to our limited perspectives) “unlimited” experience of consciousness without an ego (and here I disagree it’s without an ego) is a measure of altitude in a particular line, a line that must also be “integrated” by the self-system, the latter of which can be said to have a very fluid, ever oscillating, but relatively “stable” center of gravity about which one can make the loosest of generalizations.
Or alternatively, this “open, empty” experience can be seen as a state, with some relationship to stages. But the nature of that relationship, given that they are two very different things, is still legitimately under investigation by just about everyone involved in “integral” studies with no “orienting generalization” as yet.
Ken noted in the four definitions of “spiritual” that the only definition that cannot account for how one can have high altitude in the meditative line and lower altitude in others is one positing spiritual as some generalized trait like love or compassion. But elsewhere Ken critiques this definition, as things like love and compassion themselves have holarchies of development with stages of self-view and are not monllithic, objective and all-encompassing “givens.”
Edward: Sorry, but I’m not following you. It appears that KW is the subject of your critique, but w/o verifiable references to specific quotes it would be too much effort to rebut summaries of KW’s stuff here. Perhaps you’ve pulled the quotes in the past, and eventually I’ll stumble on them. But as it stands now, I’d rather not engage in a debate that’s not grounded in the texts themselves.
One question Joe. Does the printed version of IS have a section entitled “Monological imperialism and the myth of the given?” And if not, does it have a section about the myth of the given related to cosciousness? And what does it say on this topic?
Is there anyone else out there with a copy of the published book IS that would care to provide relevant quotes germane to this topic? My library does not yet have a copy.
I’m reading over some discussions at the I-I forums on the topic and here are a couple of quotes from the text:
“Again, meditation is not wrong, but partial, and unless its partialness is addressed it simply houses these implicit lies, assuring that liberation is never really full, and even satori conceals and perpetuates the myth of the given.” (p.344)
“The point is that higher, transpersonal spiritual realities are partially molded and constructed by vast networks of always implicit cultural backgrounds. Meditative and contemplative realities are never simply given, but rather are structured, or “tetra-structured” (in this case, esp. by zone #4), something that meditation will never tell you and can never tell you.” (p.343)
“God’s playing a new game” in WIE:
http://www.wie.org/j33/guru-pandit.asp
Wilber: The myth of the given is one of the book’s primary topics. It is the belief that the world as it appears in my consciousness, as it is given to me, is somehow fundamentally real, foundationally real, and that therefore I can base my worldview upon whatever presents itself to my consciousness. For example, I might see a rock in front of me; I take that as real. I have an experience of anger; I take that as real. But the whole point is that what our awareness delivers to us is set in cultural contexts and many other kinds of contexts that cause an interpretation and a construction of our perceptions before they even reach our awareness. So what we call real or what we think of as given is actually constructedâ€â€it’s part of a worldview.
Wilber: As I said, you can go through Zen training and still remain at a mythic/traditional/blue/amber altitude. And completely get transmission. That’s the astonishing thing about it. I asked Genpo Roshi, “What structure were the greatest Zen masters that you knew in Japan?†He replied, “They were amber/blue meme, all of them.†That’s pretty amazing. What happens is that whatever structure you’re coming from when you start these practices, for a very long time, the practice is simply going to leave that structure alone. You’ll have wonderful state experiences, and you’ll continue to interpret them through the structure at which you started.
And it’s a real problem because, as I point out in the book, you can’t see these structures by introspecting. You can look within the mind all you want, you can sit on a meditation cushion for twenty years, and you’ll never see anything that says, “This is an archaic thought, this is a magic thought, this is a mythic thought, and so on.†It won’t happen. You have to use other tools of investigation to see these structures because they’re just not given.
Wilber: Even somebody who has an enlightenment experience can still be preaching the myth of the given.
If this isn’t enough textual “evidence” then there never will be. Can we agree that this CPS that Ken speaks of in terms of the open, empty space in which phenomenon arise is what is developed in meditation? And that it too is subject to the myth of the given? If so, how can it be a measurement for stages of anything when according to Ken it cannot see those stages? How can “horizontal enlightenment” (states) as Ken calls it, measure “veritical enlightenment” (stages) given the myth of the given?
As an aside, note in the WIE interview on IS above that Ken said the following:
“What happens is that whatever structure you’re coming from when you start these [meditative] practices, for a very long time, the practice is simply going to leave that structure alone. You’ll have wonderful state experiences, and you’ll continue to interpret them through the structure at which you started.”
This would appear to contradict Ken’s earlier statements that meditative state training accelerates structural-stage development.
Edward: IS is at home at the moment and I’m not there, but if it’s still necessary I can look up a passage in IS in the near future. I believe I already answered your question, “Now is or is not this consciousness without a perspective, this pure perception of everything that is arising, the same as the consciousness per se…” in the negative. On the one hand, there is the “philosophy of consciousness” which is accessible via introspection/phenomenology. But consciousness in general (your CPS) is NOT that; it is Spirit, the ground in which everything arises including perception. I’m sorry I can’t pull a KW quote on this out of my head, and perhaps KW would put it differently, but that’s how I read KW. Yes, sometimes KW speaks of the Witness as an open clearing in which consciousness arises; but he also speaks of Spirit, as a vibrant, alive suchness or thisness of all that is. Spirit includes the Witness, but the Witness is not identified with Spirit.
I think you are right however that it is tricky to talk about knowledge of Spirit. KW speaks of Spirit as directly experienced, yes, in the same way that love is, or a flower, or a stubbed toe. But KW’s Kosmos of nested holarchies also tells us that Spirit cannot be understood directly. We are always interpreting our experiences in complex ways not accessible via introspection.
Edward: “Can we agree that this CPS that Ken speaks of in terms of the open, empty space in which phenomenon arise is what is developed in meditation?” I don’t agree. Spirit isn’t developed in meditation. There are different types of meditation, but mostly you are meditating in order to develop awareness of the Witness, not Spirit itself.
Edward: “how can [consciousness as the philosophy of the subject] be a measurement for stages of anything when according to Ken it cannot see those stages?” I think the subject cannot access the awareness of stages UNLESS it is informed by the insights from zone2 and zone4, then it can at least begin to introspect itself with some additional awareness (which is good). Introspection cannot see how to measure itself in stages, but it can be informed by zone 2 and zone 4 insights.
As for whether meditation advances a subject through stages or merely gives different states, I don’t see KW as contradicting himself. The text you pulled includes the phrase “for a very long time, the practice is simply going to leave that structure alone.” If vertical growth happens, which is by no means assured, then it happens very gradually. That’s probably right, though really since the research in the whole area of advanced stages of consciousness is very light, it’s best to simply take this as KW’s best guess–his attempt to answer questions posed to him by others based on his partial knowledge–and be open to all reasonable explanations.
Hope that helps clarify what I think. To summarize: Spirit is not the same as the “interior space” of any one individual; it would be closer to say that it’s the same as the “interior space” of all individual sentient beings, plus all “exterior spaces” as well, and in past, present, and future dimensions. That’s why I think KW’s emphasis on the myth of the given is so important. Individuals may experience spirit directly but our understanding of Spirit is always, always limited by our contexts. Even that last statement is also limited. And therein is a paradox.2:25 PM 12/18/2006
Ok, you’re going into another definition of “Spirit” besides the 4 definitions Ken uses of “spitirual” at the beginning of this post.
Ken says in IS (draft) and elsewhere that even the states “develop” in a long-term training program, from gross to subtle to causal to nondual. He says on p. 95:
“But some states can be trained, and when this involves attention deploymentâ€â€as many forms of meditation and contemplation doâ€â€then these trained states tend to unfold in a sequential fashion. And when they do so, they tend to follow the natural order of gross to subtle to causal to nondual states.”
On p. 96 he lists the natural states as:
“All men and women have available to them at least 5 great natural states of consciousness, all of which can be directly experienced:
1. gross-waking states, such as what I might experience riding a bike or reading this page or doing bodywork;
2. subtle-dream states, such as I might experience in a vivid dream, or in a vivid “daydream†or visualization exercise, as well as in certain types of meditation with form;
3. causal-formless states, such as deep dreamless sleep and types of formless meditation and experiences of vast openness or emptiness;
4. witnessing statesâ€â€or “the Witnessâ€Ââ€â€which is a capacity to witness all of the other states; for example, the capacity for unbroken attention in the waking state and the capacity to lucid dream;
5. ever-present Nondual awareness, which is not so much a state as the ever-present ground of all states (and can be “experienced†as such). ”
So 2 things. The definition of nondual in #5 above does seem to be what you’re describing as Spirit, the ever-present ground. It is not a state or a stage, and apparently not CPS either. If this is its meaning then it’s not a “measure” of anything, or so it seems. For everything is the same in ground value, just as it is. It doesn’t appear to be a measure of stage altitude.
I say apparently not CPS because elsewhere (don’t have quotes handy but I’ll find them later) Ken seems to describe this absolute ground from which phenomenon arise as the causal. And at times he links the Witness to the causal, though not always. It CPS is the causal or witnessing I can’t see using that as a measuring stick either, as it’s a state within the individual inside/interiior and hence not outside of perspective like you define Spirit (or nondual per above).
And as to meditation-state training, it says 2-3 times in the IS draft that this will accelerate stage development. (Again, I can pull them later and they might have been pulled from the published version). So if one can experience stable, higher states for a “long” time and it doesn’t raise their structure-stage, then how is that “accelerated.”
Yes, #5 nondual is what I’m describing as Spirit, esp. as it appears from an individual subjective angle. I think it is “consciousness as such.” That’s how I’m using it. Do you think KW would disagree? I’d like to see a quote if you can find it.
Technically you are correct when you say, “it’s not a “measure†of anything, or so it seems. For everything is the same in ground value, just as it is. It doesn’t appear to be a measure of stage altitude.” But the opposite view is also possible, and that’s where I am coming from. If Spirit is all and excludes nothing, then it MUST embrace every stage altitude, every state, etc. at all times. Everything is always both itself at a stage or in a state, and also part of Spirit.
I realize this seems like talking in paradoxes, and I accept that and perhaps you don’t. Once again, I would point you to the Kronos band if you’re the type of person for whom images help.
http://until.joe-perez.com/2006/11/kronology-glossary-kronos-band.html
Taking turquoise (station
as an example, we actually find that in order to see how something can be both evolved and fully equal at the same time we can visualize this by saying that an object is at altitude turquoise and depth amber. As seen from the evolution of Spirit, its value is +8; as seen from the involution of Spirit, its value is -8. The sum is zero. All objects always sum to zero, and thus have the same value as Spirit. However, you can take different perspectives on that value and one of them is altitude and another is depth; put the two together and you can start to see how they fit. The entire Kronos band is a symbol of Spirit. However, we only see Spirit from a particular location of altitude and depth.
So as I see it, you absolutely can use Spirit itself (CPS) to indicate general stations along a continuum … if you’re imaginative enough and very careful.
I think Wilber expresses this very clearly when he says that you are NEVER amber; but you can have amber cognition, amber morals, amber psychosexual development, etc. AMBER as such is content-free, as he puts it. I believe that content-free space can be symbolized by a holistic symbol (say, the Kronos band). However, the symbols are just there as a teaching aid and don’t “exist” apart from the ways that we construct them. Mandalas, or symbols of wholeness, are among the oldest of all wisdom traditions and are known in virtually every culture. Jung even thought that they come to people spontaneously in dreams from the collective unconscious. I tend to think that they are Archetypes whose significance is apprehended from the violet altitude.
btw, on “acceleration”: I’m sure you’re right. KW does sometimes say that experiencing states over time leads to advances in stages. But nowhere does he say that if you do X, Y is guaranteed to happen to YOU. He’s talking about general trends as he understands them. I’m inclined to think he’s right about all this, though I haven’t seen the studies myself and suspect that research in this area will always be somewhat inconclusive. But where’s the contradiction or conflict you see? Psychologists say things all the time like, “children learn to walk at the age of 2-3.” But this isn’t a guarantee that your child might be a fast learner, a slow learner, or (yikes) be hit by a bus at the age of 1.5. Somehow when KW makes perfectly ordinary generalizations he gets clobbered for seeming to contradict some other generalization somewhere else, and when anyone has written as much as he has, it’s not hard to do. But I fail to see the relevance. There’s some reason to believe meditation helps consciousness growth; KW certainly thinks so; do it or don’t do it; if you would, share your wisdom with the world as to the long-term consequences; but it seems petty for some folks to harp on KW or any other psychologist because their experiences vary from the predicted average results! Or they use the lack of complete clarity of research, perhaps blaming KW for contradicting himself, as an excuse not to try and observe and see what happens. I’m not saying YOU are doing this, but I see this around enough it seems fairly common.
“Wilber: As I said, you can go through Zen training and still remain at a mythic/traditional/blue/amber altitude. And completely get transmission. That’s the astonishing thing about it. I asked Genpo Roshi, “What structure were the greatest Zen masters that you knew in Japan?†He replied, “They were amber/blue meme, all of them.†That’s pretty amazing. What happens is that whatever structure you’re coming from when you start these practices, for a very long time, the practice is simply going to leave that structure alone. You’ll have wonderful state experiences, and you’ll continue to interpret them through the structure at which you started.â€Â
Yet he also says when one realizes a higher state permanently, it is through a higher structure. So all of these Zen masters, by Wilber’s logic, failed to realize a higher state of consciousness permanently. Indeed, all masters of long ago failed to do so, because in order to do so, they would have to pass through all the stages, magic, mythic, rational, and so on, some of which, according to Wilber, had not even emerged at the time.
“And it’s a real problem because, as I point out in the book, you can’t see these structures by introspecting. You can look within the mind all you want, you can sit on a meditation cushion for twenty years, and you’ll never see anything that says, “This is an archaic thought, this is a magic thought, this is a mythic thought, and so on.†It won’t happen. You have to use other tools of investigation to see these structures because they’re just not given.â€Â
What Wilber means is that awareness of structures is what he calls dialogical knowledge, built up only through interactions with others. Isolated individuals can’t aquire it on their own. What he doesn’t add is that this information is to a very large degree optional; it is not necessary to have all of it in order to realize a higher state of awareness. The meditator takes what dialogical information he/she needs, but no one can grasp all of it, and there is no reason to do so.
It’s like saying the meditator depends upon a medical system, or a transportation system, or a communication system, or a food supply system, all of which are created through the interactions of many other people. One can’t survive in the modern world by meditation in isolation. One has to interact with other people. So what?
The point is that meditation simply provides one with greater awareness of the currents of one’s time, and the ability to make use of them. Different people will make use of different concepts or ideas. The notion that one can’t become enlightened if one is not aware of Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber is absurd. There is no ultimate truth in these ideas. They are simply useful concepts for certain people.
â€ÂAnd as to meditation-state training, it says 2-3 times in the IS draft that this will accelerate stage development. (Again, I can pull them later and they might have been pulled from the published version). So if one can experience stable, higher states for a “long†time and it doesn’t raise their structure-stage, then how is that “accelerated.â€Â
Wilber claims in various places that studies show one may advance at a rate of one stage about every two years. These studies are deeply flawed, this has been gone over at length by someone whose name escapes me, he’s referenced on Visser’s site. I also discuss these studies in my critique of IS. Moreover, if progress were really this fast, those aforementioned Zen masters should have gotten to the rational stage easily within their lifetimes, and then gone beyond it.
Here are some quotes from the draft version I have of IS. They might or might not have survived in the published book and if so perhaps on different pages. I didn’t pull all relevant quotes due to lack of time, just some representative samples to illustrate what I’m talking about. I’ll comment later as time permits:
Thus, we can refer to the 5 major, natural, and/or meditative states of consciousness as: gross, subtle, causal, witnessing, and nondual states of consciousness. p. 93
But some states can be trained, and when this involves attention deploymentâ€â€as many forms of meditation and contemplation doâ€â€then these trained states tend to unfold in a sequential fashion. And when they do so, they tend to follow the natural order of gross to subtle to causal to nondual states. P. 95
That means that in my direct, first-person experience, phenomenal states in many types of meditation are said to unfold from gross phenomena (“I see rocksâ€Â) to subtle phenomena (“I see light and bliss, I feel expansive loveâ€Â), to causal phenomena (“There is only vast emptiness, an infinite abyssâ€Â) to nondual (“Divine Emptiness and relative Form are not twoâ€Â). These are not 3rd-person structures (seen by zone #2), but 1st-person states (zone #1). pp. 95-96
What you can see in figure 4.1 is that a person at any stage can have a peak experience of a gross, subtle, causal, or nondual state. But a person will interpret that state according to the stage they are at. p. 109
We saw that a “nondual mysticism†was a “union with everything in the gross, subtle, and causal realms.†But, as we have often seen, you can have a nondual state experience at virtually any stage, including magic and mythic, and these stages do not contain phenomena from the higher stages. So at the mythic stage, for example, you can have a realization of nondual, ever-present, Big-Mind awareness that is a pure unity experience with everything in your world, but that experience leaves out a great deal of the universe. Thus satori can actually be unity with a partial reality. Generally speaking, this is not good. pp. 114-115
When it comes to the nature of enlightenment or realization, this means that a complete, full, or nondual realization has two components, absolute (emptiness) and relative (form). The “nonconceptual mind†gives us the former, and the “conceptual mind†gives us the latter. Put it this way: when you come out of nonconceptual meditation, what conceptual forms will you embrace? If you are going to enter the manifest realmâ€â€if you are going to embrace not just nonconceptual nirvana but also conceptual samsaraâ€â€then what conceptual forms will you use? By definition, a nondual realization demands both “no views†in emptiness and “views†in the world of form. p. 130
Edward,
Good post. Some thoughts.
On your last point meditation, state-stages and structure-stages I would venture that at least the following two pieces of evidence have strong support.
A)Individuals can reach deepest state-stages (Nondual) AND still not have that change their structure-stages. At least maybe in the self-related, morals, values, lines.
B)Meditation or ecstatic experiences does push certain individuals into higher structure-stages. Again in certain lines perhaps.
Which to me then means that states can but do not automatically promote acceleration. Wilber says in IS: “As we saw: all things considered equal, the more you experience various states, the mroe quickly you develop through the stages. (p.196).”
But all things are not equal. In the same section he is describing this he is talking about religions that can support or repress movement in the spiritual intelligence line. So maybe meditation needs other aspects quadratically: an accepting, evolving, wide cultural-religious system, biophysical health, economic-political stability/health.
But I agree with you that Wilber’s language leans towards an automatic sense that meditation=automatic accelerated growth.
–
In regard to what I think is the more important issue you raise: CPS, One Perception, etc.
As a background I would say in terms of Ken’s use of Vedanta-Vajrayana scheme and how that relates or doesn’t to Habermas (a point you’ve raised on this matter before I think), my sense is that the V-V scheme does qualify vis a vis the three strands: practice, empiricism, community of adequate/peer review.
The scheme then arises out of this matrix. If we forget that background and don’t undertake those practices, then Wilber can be just a mythic figure who gives an argument from authority. But I don’t think that has to be the case.
But anyway, onto the issue.
If we back up for a moment, nobody knows any of this fully. No system can ever have perfect coherence. But still worth discussing.
For me, there is some tension, probably never to be resolved, around states and stages. Nor state-stages, structure-stages, etc.
Wilber has said that the stages of consciousness are variations of the 3 great states of Gross, Subtle, and Causal. So not only are there states, state-stages, and structure-stages, but somehow the structure-stages are variations of the three states.
Don’t know what that means. But there are, by Wilber’s admission, metaphysical elements in post-metaphysics. Involution. And involution is always gonig to be open, I assume, to your charges of myth of given, unjust judgment/ranking, etc. But I do agree with Wilber that at some point you just have to start with something.
i see the statement of the stages as variations on the themes of the states as metaphoric. Like Plotinus’ notion of the One overflowing.
We can only ever use dualistic notions to metaphorically reference the Absolute. So Wilber is using consciousness to refer both to the interior in the dualistic quadratic reference and as Formless Consciousness per se.
The consciousness is deficient is not that consciousness is deficient but that introspective (1-p) modes of being-in-the-world can not spot patterns developing in time (3-p). And all of that is within the relative sphere. Particulary in the Upper Left: meditation does not teach understanding of how social-cultural-political-linguistic-biological phenomena affect interpretation. I think all that is right on.
The absolute is the essence of what is arising. The Causal as creatrix is still relative. It is very subtle in Tibetan lingo.
So the question is then how is consciousness per se the empty marker of developmental process. I would see the answer to that in terms of what we have discussed before relating to Nagarjuna.
Wilber is a from the Consciousness-Only school of Yogachara with some Hua-Yen and Peirce notions of habits thrown in.
I see this tension you raise in terms of those influences of his.
Consciousness-only is the metahpor, in language that can be used, of the Absolute. With Nagarjuna there is no metaphor. But if you use Consciousness as metaphor then since that is the Essence of everything that arises, then the markers of the eros evolving in form.
It’s essence is the Absolute-Consciousness. I don’t know how you determine whether Consciousness only is the right-metaphor or if there is only one, or any at all, approrpriate. Or than study the authors who say that, follow their practices, and see what happens.
But we know that known of us know what causes transformation. Which is why the consciousness/interiority 1-p deficiency and the state-stages
Which is why the mental will never perfectly deal with all this.
When Wilber writes that you have state-stages and that you can experience depth/familiarity with the all the states and not change stages, it is also true that he says that mystics push into the higher strcuture-stages.
How does that work? I think it’s true, but I don’t know how. Or at least its a good (best?) guess about a process we know next to nil about.
I think a better place to go, is where you were headed and Mark E. as well is states and how we interpret them.
It might be that states to use postmodern-ese should states-es. That is there is no such thing as just one state but multiple states happening simultaneously with only parts of ourselves ever engaged with any and any moment.
And then you can start applying the Habermas intersubjective critique through those interpretations. Communicative reason, intersub., through states(es).
I tend to think that
First off, from the quotes I used above, we can see that even the nondual, like all states, is “not 3rd-person structures (seen by zone #2), but 1st-person states (zone #1).” Now granted in another quote we saw that nondual was also “not so much a state as the ever-present ground of all states.” So yes, Ken is aware of several definitions and usages, it’s just a matter of when and how he uses them. When he lumps nondual in with states it’s the 1st person experience, when he talks about the nondual as ground of all states and stages, its this larger Spirit. But the bottom line seems to be that this Spirit can must be intepreted, i.e., there is no “pure” experience of it sans intepretation.
Now in the quotes above it appears that there can be the pure experience of emptiness on the one hand and the relative intepretation on the other hand, or how Ken describes the nondual as the union of causal emptiness with gross form. He says that the former gives us nonconceptual mind and the latter conceptual mind. But it’s not like one has a pure experience and then “comes out of it” and inteprets it; they are simultaneous. The conceptual shapes the experience at the same time the experience is being interpreted. So even the so-called causal emptiness experience is in part constructed. And I’m guessing this is what some also mean by nondual, this interpenetration of ontology and epistemolgy. And yes, even Ken uses this intepretation on occasion in IS.
I guess I’m asking for consistency in theory, that not all definitions apply in all circumstances. And Ken has a tendency at times to mix and match definitions, or at other times to not clearly differentiate between them for the context. I realize that in an “integral” model we can take all these differenct perspectives and usages, and they are all valid with their contextual framework. It’s just confusing at times when the Kosmic address, as it were, is not always clear in Ken’s writings, despite his admonitions to be so.
And then there are legitimate difference of opinion as to Kosmic address, and Ken can be rather dogmatic in being the final arbiter of this address. That is why I quoted the one fellow on Ken being at the top of the pyramid and deciding who is where in the ultimate scheme of things by giving out addresses. More on that later.
To return to my original point. If we use Ken’s definition of nondual as having two components, absolute emptiness and relative form, it’s presuming a “given” that there is indeed an “absolute” that is beyond form. And from where does this notion arise, of an absolute beyond form? From the very meditative traditions that Ken criticizes for being caught in the myth of the given.
So what I’m saying is this notion of an absolute beyond form, and the supposed human capacity to experience it directly with perception, is itself what leads to the hegemonizing and totalizing judgment of an absolute scale by which all can be measured. And of course this is always through the person(s) that claims to be speaking for this absolute position, whether that’s the Pope speaking for God or Ken speaking for CPS regarding altitude.
And if we use Ken’s definition of nondual as the ground of all states and stages which “can be experienced as such,” we’re still caught in the myth of a given experience “as such” that it can be purely experienced sans intepretation. Again, just the notion that there is an “as such” experience and that one can speak for it leads to hegemony.
I agree with Joe that we can presume such a Spirit (or God), but it must be an open definition more like Derrida’s to be useful without being hegemonic. When it comes to altitude I’d prefer to stick with the research in specific lines rather than some overall altitude based on CPS/Spirit/God, while still acknowleging the latter. I still find use for the idea of separation of Church and State and their integration, which doesn’t mean their fusion or measuring one with the other (category/validity error).
Edward: “To return to my original point. If we use Ken’s definition of nondual as having two components, absolute emptiness and relative form, it’s presuming a “given†that there is indeed an “absolute†that is beyond form. And from where does this notion arise, of an absolute beyond form? From the very meditative traditions that Ken criticizes for being caught in the myth of the given.”
I don’t think that’s the best interpretation of KW so it seems to me you may be creating and then burning a straw man and then putting as your own view more or less what KW has been saying all along. Earlier you quote KW’s Excerpts: “The union of Emptiness and Form is thus the union of perception and perspective, where in my pure perception I am one with everything that is arising (although as expressed through my own individual perspective, with which I am no longer exclusively identified).”
But then you here paraphrase KW as “Ken’s definition of nondual as having two components, absolute emptiness and relative form, it’s presuming a “given†that there is indeed an “absolute†that is beyond form. It’s true KW talks about “pure perception” as the unity of “perception” and “perspective,” so perhaps the view you are criticizing is that there is anything like pure perception? And perhaps you would also fault KW’s notion of Emptiness as a freedom from all perspectives and Form as finding the Fullness of perspectives, because such notions are impossible. If that is indeed your claim, that would be better stated than claiming KW argues for “components” to nondual, one “absolute” and the other “relative,” I think.
Instead, I see KW as saying that both Emptiness and Form are each absolute and relative mixed and that there is no full separation of either, but with a nondual realization the possibility of a “unity” of “perception” and “perspective”. In other words, nonduality as the overcoming of the relativistic pluralist’s dilemma of being trapped forever in perspectives and perceptions that never meet.
If I’ve pegged your argument correctly that there is no pure perception (i.e., no nondual realization), then I would say your proposal for a more “open definition” of nondual realization that is not “hegemonic” needs some fleshing out. Open in what way? How do you expect to avoid all criticicisms of hegemony?
I think what you’ve said so far is that you don’t like KW’s description of nondual because he says there’s perception “as such” and that “one can speak for it.” To back this up, show me where KW claims he is speaking FOR God, Spirit, or nondual. Show me where KW claims that his point of view is so superior to others that it demands hegemony. If you stick to KW’s actual words, taken in the context of the general thrust of his writings on Spirit, I think the best you can show is that KW claims to be describing nondual realization as he knows it and offering that there must be room in any comprehensive theory of reality for such experience.
On the other hand, if you stick to bad KW interpretations and misreadings offered by people with axes to grind, then sure you’re going to be able to succeed at claiming KW as some sort of megalomaniacial theorist. But remember as you put together your own views on Spirit that you should expect others to treat your own words with no more generosity and accuracy than you are giving to KW.
Oops – in last paragraph, “stick to” is overstated. I should have said “offer”. While I do think your reading of KW is somewhat off in this case, I don’t think your interpretations of KW are “bad” and wouldn’t want that implied.
Honestly though, while I didn’t direct the “people with axes to grind” comment directly at you, generally with the “non-Wilberian integralists” that’s how I perceive them as coming across. I say this because some of the most vocal ones will latch onto any and every KW careless phrase, I-I misstep, and pile on. Then they’ll generously point to any and every KW critic from ANY point of view as their new hero. That’s the sound of one axe grinding.
If you can’t tell the difference between the sound of an ax grinding and the sound of a scalpel cutting then perhaps there’s AQALiscious Wax* build-up?
*AQALiscious Wax is a trademarked product of Integral Instiloot available only through authorized 2nd-tier coaches and metaprogrammers. List price is only $3,000 per 1 oz. tin. “If it doesn’t say AQALiscious it isn’t integral.†TM
Being from the “axes” camp, this conversation between EB and JP is grist for the mill. JP has formally studied philosophy but EB, I presume, has not. JP used to be a very reasoned voice but somewhere down the line lost his cool. EB’s sincerity and zeal is beyond reproach and his is the child’s approach to have discovered that the emperor is naked.
JP understands that this is the end of the road and tries to browbeat EB for his “misreading.” But EB’s questions are absolutely valid and the truth is that no one in the whole history of human thought has been able to solve this riddle except Sri Aurobindo (in his The Life Divine). So why task Ken for something which is beyond his ken?
Funny you should mention AQALiscious Wax. I went looking for some of that yummy stuff on the pier by the boardwalk the other day and got accosted by dozens of street vendors hawking Aqualiscious Wax for only $20 per 2 oz. tin. I brought it home to sprinkle on my corn flakes but the stuff made me wretch. I turned over the tin and it said: “Also available: Ken Wilber New and Improved Perennial Philosophy,” “Wilberian Metaphysics (Comes with Spiral Crystals),” “Postmodern Open Integral Cat-Scratching Post – Guaranteed to be 100% Nonhegemonic,” “The Doll Man’s One True Integral Dolly (Not Wilberism a.k.a. False Integral),” “Alaqism: There is No Other God but ALAQ.” I decided to buy one of each to put inside my Integral nativity set. Ho Ho Ho
Tuscar: Loosing one’s cool is inevitable from time to time. But it neither makes one right nor wrong, good nor bad, more or less inclusive. If by losing my cool you mean that I believe some non-Wilberians have axes to grind, then WHOA! you have low standards for losing one’s coolness.
btw, you are also “misreading” this dialogue. EB didn’t offer “questions” that are “valid,” and I didn’t question the validity of his valid questions. EB made assertions (not ?s) based on partial readings of Wilber, or so I believe based on the text provided. If I’m wrong, show me how. Perhaps you could explain briefly how Aurobindo “solves” this riddle, i.e., the particular exchange between EB and I over how to understand Wilber’s words concerning nondual realization. That would be most helpful, but appeals to Authority of any kind, even one so eminent as Aurobindo, isn’t as helpful. Every authority can be interpreted in better and worse ways, as I’m sure you know.
So Tusar, we are supposed to replace worship of Wilber with worship of Aurobindo? Making statements such as:
“no one in the whole history of human thought has been able to solve this riddle except Sri Aurobindo”
just ain’t gonna cut it with the folks here. No one? In the whole history? Sounds like pure Wilberian hyperbole to me.
Thank you, Ray.
If JP really needs help he has to empty his cup first, albeit partially. Leave aside authority, The Life Divine is available online in black and white. As for RH, a fact is a fact; so why fight shy of facing it?
Ray said:
No one? In the whole history? Sounds like pure Wilberian hyperbole to me.
I try to avoid hyperbole, or when I do use it (as I do now and then) I always specify it\’s really just my own biased pov, and not to be taken as an objective fact.
But if we have folks here representing the mainstream Wilberian position, why not also people representing and equally passionate about the mainstream Aurobindonian stance? In my case I cannot consider myself belonging strictly to the latter category, because I am also interested in and affiliate myself with the wider Integral Movement as a whole. But I am extremely pleased to see Tusar contributing here, if only to provide some necessary Aurobindonian hyperbole to balance the Wilberian hyperbole
There is a purity in the original and orthodox tradition, wherever it appears. Orthodox Wilberism which stays loyal to KW only, orthodox Aurobindonism which is concerned only with the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, and other such orthodoxies are very necessary to maintain those teachings and traditions, and hence provide the essential foundation that integralists like ourselves can build upon in our greater synthesis. For some here, this synthesis begins with Wilberian theory and works out from there, for others, like myself, it begins with the Aurobindonian position and grows from there. Others again may have a different starting point. But it is good to encourage both orthodoxies and heterodoxies within the larger integral movement.
Missing Persons:
My lips are moving and the sound’s coming out
The words are audible but I have my doubts
That you realise what has been said
You look at me as if you’re in a daze
It’s like the feeling at the end of the page when you realise
You don’t know what you just read.
I might as well go up and talk to a wall
Coz all the words are having no effect at all
It’s a funny thing.. am I all alone?
Something has to happen to change the direction
What little filters though is giving you the wrong impression
“it’s a sorry state” I say to myself
What are words for
When noone listens anymore
What are words for
When noone listens what are words for
When noone listens
There’s no use talking at all.
Come on Edward, life’s not that bad!
But yeah, i get bored with words and too much mental argument. Fortunately I don’t often have this problem where , through absolutely no-one’s fault, and in spite of sincerity on both sides, communication fails or meanings misunderstood (I haven’t been following this thing between you and Joe btw, so i don’t know what it’s about and who if any or both are right or wrong). That’s why I prefer to follow the pure spiritual path and access the reality behind the words.
Often I log on to Open Integral because I feel this is such a promising forum, and I see who’s commented and that’s cool, but then if I skim through, its just so much words words words and my eyes just glaze over, and it doesn’t register in my brain, because it’s all mental mental mental and there’s nothing pragmatically spiritual there.
If your path is Derrida then follow that path, to the Reality beyond! If someone else prefers Wilber, look at what KW says about the nondual (and KW recommends Sri Ramana, just as I do) and attune to that, not to the words.
What I’m trying to do is bring the mystical and esoteric and spiritual element into the Integral movement, because there is still too much emphasis on theory and what Ken says and what someone else says, and who cares what they say? Because what really matters at the end of the day is how you can apply it in your life, and cultivate selflessness and compassion for all beings and aspiration for the Supreme. That’s the only thing that matters, everything else is an amusing game, nothing more.
Just my 2 cents.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 KJV
On the other hand God, in his infinite wisdom:
But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Genesis 11:5-7 NIV
[ by Vladimir on Fri 22 Dec 2006 08:03 AM PST Profile Permanent Link
I am glad you brought in this quotation from the Gospel of John, which is the most secret and wonderful text of Christianity, it reflects something of the ancient Chaldean tradition common in many ways with Vedic.
The Word, Logos, Agni, the light in the darkness, has descended from Heaven, sent by the Father to be in the world, it got a flash. He is often called in the Bible the Son of Man, the Son of the Purusha, as it were, the Psychic being; or sometimes he is called “the only Son of Godâ€Â, meaning that the Psychic being is the only being directly descended from the Father; all other creatures such as typal beings: gods and asuras etc., and all other things and creations do not have that privilege to be a direct offspring of the Father, as it were. It is in this context that we can truly understand all other statements of Christ, for instance: “Only through me you can come to my Fatherâ€Â, or “I and my Father are oneâ€Â. According to the mystic doctrine of Christianity Christ lives in the heart of every man, it is through that presence in the heart that one can realise the Supreme. (Cp. to the Krishna’s statement: “now everyone will find me, the Supreme, in his heartâ€Â). ]
http://seof.blogspot.com/2006/12/savitri-herself-is-here-incarnate-word.html
No one is suggesting that Tusar not contribute. I’m only suggesting he monitor his absolutism.
I never suggested that people start worshipping The Mother and Sri Aurobindo nor am I emphasizing upon the esoteric aspect of their teachings. Just for the information sake I am telling that Sri Aurobindo, in his book The Life Divine, has been successful to resolve some age-old metaphysical questions most comprehensively. These are purely academic in nature and open to scrutiny.
There can be dialogue as to what are the philosophical issues and in what way Sri Aurobindo stands taller. We can also compare and contrast his contributions with others, provided, we maintain a spirit of inquiry and thirst for knowledge.
Hi Tusar,
I enjoyed Vladimir’s hemeneutic interpretation of Christianity. Intereistingly, I independently came to the opinion of seeing Christ as the metaphor for the Psychic Being.
re asking people to read TLD. Well that’s the problem here. Everyone has their own perspective and there’s very little overlap. And where there is overlap, it’s only about KW. Most of the Integral movement is still limited to Wilber’s teachings. I’m not saying people shouldn’t study and discuss his works, but just that (for me at least, others may feel differently!) it is limiting if that is the only thing that is studied, since he is not an Enlightened being. It means that one remains stuck in the realm of the relative intellect
So it’s pointless expecting people here to tackle a thousand pages of The Life Divine; just as its pointless asking an Aurobindonian to read 800 pages of Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Unless you are drawn to something, there is no motivation. And it’s elements in the inner being, and even the vital (in my terminology the affective being) etc that attracts people to this teaching or that one. For you, like me, it’s the aurobindonian path. For others it’s the wilberian. And so on. Of course each person is concvinced that their chosen teaching is the greatest, and will argue passionately the case (as I, like you, do re Sri Aurobindo). So all we can do is state the facts as best we see them, and let the Supreme decide.
“I’m not saying people shouldn’t study and discuss his works, but just that (for me at least, others may feel differently!) it is limiting if that is the only thing that is studied, since he is not an Enlightened being. It means that one remains stuck in the realm of the relative intellect.”
And you are saying that Aurobindo was an enlightened being, that you know this for certain? Or that you know that anyone discussed in this forum is/was enlightened?
Andy asked
And you are saying that Aurobindo was an enlightened being, that you know this for certain?
Yes. And The Mother too
This is evident from
o The authoritory with which and about which they wrote or spoke (KW in contrast always uses second hand sources when discussing these matters, so do I. However this argument in itself is not persuasive because an Intermediate Zone guru also speaks with authority and direct experience)
o The anecdotes of those who knew them
o Most importantly, and in addition to the above two points, there has not been a single case of them abusing their position. This is in contrats to the “intermediate zone” gurus who have only partial enlightenment, but speak witha uthority and have dedicated followers whose lives were transformed. But the IZ guru will almost always in some way absue their position. The authentic and totally enlightened being never will. (If they ever do, they aren’t totally enlightened). This si one reason why I have become so interested in the subject of abyusive and ambiguous gurus of late, it is teh real acid test concerning who is truly genuine and who not.
Or that you know that anyone discussed in this forum is/was enlightened?
Sri Ramana, although apart from me no-one here has discussed him here (or if they have, sorry, hard leeping track of everything lol!). For the same three reasons as given re S.A. Marko has also mentioned A.H. Almaas; I don’t know enough about him, but if he passes the above three points then I would concede he is too.
I would add a fourth agument in both cases, but this is not much use for you as it is meant only for me: To me they each have an authentic presence about them (however I concede I have in the past been fooled by intermediate zone gurus, that is why i say my intimations on this matter should not be taken as authoritative). Ultimately you yourself in your innermost being have to decide who is authentic, and even then be careful not to be sidetracked by rationalisations or intermediate zone glamour.
I understand Andy that these arguments are not persuasive to the external rational mind. But you yourself have acknowledged there are states of consciousness beyond that.
I know this is getting off track but in reading Alan’s reply I wondered if ‘abusing’ their position was ever and objective thing. I’ve been researching child abuse for my novel and one thing is clear, abuse is culturally conditioned. That is, what is considered abuse in one culture is not considered abuse in another. It reminds me of the fuss over swami Muktananda, specifically the claim that he sexually abused young girls. Now as far as I’m aware Muktananda did have sex with female disciples but there are a number of inconsistancies and cultural clashes. The first inconsistancy is that some female disciples have come forward to say that they consented and that they regarded the experience as spiritually powerful, but others have come forward to say they regretted the experience. The next problem, and the one germane to my point, is that the youngest ‘victim’ was supposed to be 14, which by Western standards is ‘child’ abuse but by traditional Indian standards is not, particularly considering that in the widespread devadasi system the devadasi was initiated by a priest (or guru) just before or after her first period. I should also add that the worst account I had read of Muktananda’s abuse was contained in a book by a fundamentalist Christian convert who after conversion regarded her Hindu experiences as the time she had been tempted by Satan.
So, by what standards do we define abuse? Given for instance, that in Autobiography of a Yogi the famous Babaji asks a disciple to jump off a cliff and kill himself, whereby he is bought back to life? This story being to illustrate the degree of surrender required from a true disciple.
Hi Ray
You’ve probably seen this
* Caldwell, Sarah The Heart of the Secret: A Personal and Scholarly Encounter with Shakta Tantrism in Siddha Yoga. (pdf)
Apparently Muktananda had one teaching for his outer circle, which was celibate etc, another (based on Kaula Tantra) for his inner circle, and Cauldwell argues that his sexual activities have to be seen in this light.
But it is one thing to do something like this as part of a traditional culture in which both partners are willing and knowledgable participants; in Muktanada’s case this wasn’t so. And while some girls thought it was a lark, others were freaked out by Muktananda’s advances. Add to that the conspiracy of silence, threats of violence, Muktanada’s temper, etc etc. See this account and this account.
The thing is, I really like Muktananda, and always have. I get a really nice vibe from him. I’m sure he had many wonderful virtues. But the thing is, he clearly wasn’t an enlightened being. I class him as an “intermediate zone guru”, in which the explerience of enlightenment is combined with the persistence of lower and self-seeking tendencies.
Kosmic Addresses: Through the Looking Glass
“The man in the mirror
He keeps getting nearer
But I am not moving.†–Dan Fogelberg
Granted the KA includes altitude but if it’s to be AQAL it must include not only levels but lines, types, quadrants, states, individual psychoanalytic and shadow material as well as cultural-historical intersubjective/objective contexts and artifacts. As I’ve expressed before some of the other-than-altitudinal factors can and often do influence and “color†how one perceives altitude. In addition, just using an altitude and quadrant base for general categorization might be indicative in itself of a very partial “AQAL†perspective and hence guilty of its own form of absolutism. I’ve suggested that that form of absolutism is the notion of an overall altitude based on the idea of “consciousness per se†(CPS).
On the other hand, if we measure altitude in particular line at a particular moment in a particular context with all the other AQAL factors we will see that it’s far more complex, which of course is the crux of the measure of altitude in the cognitive line (hierarchical or holarchical complexity). And altitude itself in the cognitive line, like all lines, is fluctuating between 3 levels at any given moment and/or context. I think Ken was right when he said that altitude expresses about 50% of the time from its center of gravity (COG) and about 25% of the time each from the levels below and above. So to actually prescribe an altitude to anyone or anything at any time requires a tremendous amount of detailed specificity.
To just plunk a label of overall altitude to one as if that’s their permanent address is indicative of something far less than integral, in my opinion. It doesn’t even serve well as an orienting generalization. I’m all for including altitude in any AQAL perspective, but only by being very specific and including as much information as possible per above. Which of course will require a high cognitive capacity that is admittedly rare, even in “integral†circles. It seems much ado about altitude is more often much ado about proving one’s superiority via a rather amorphous, hegemonic and traditional CPS rather than any attempt at actual specific altitude given the context. Give me the latter but dump the former if we want to go “integral.â€Â